Steve Camp Nails It

One of the blog feeds that I make sure is always up-to-date in my newsreader is from fellow Calvary Chapel pastor Charles Nestor. Today’s blogpost refers to another article by Steve Camp, “Doctrinally Disfigured”, which hits the nail squarely on the head RE: the current trend to trendifyize the church.

The first two paragraphs hit the initial home run which sets the tone for the rest of the article:

The face of evangelicalism has been altered so dramatically that it looks “doctrinally disfigured” suffering from one too many “botox injections” of pragmaticism and ecumenism; with severe “soteriological ‘nips and tucks'” that gifted “plastic surgeons” skilled with the scalpel of New Perspectivism, Inclusivism, Open Theism and Postmodernism have cut away so much of authentic gospel “tissue” that what’s left is just a synthetic, artificial “message-manikin.” The “religious legislative laser technicians” have almost burned away the aged wrinkles of faithfulness to God’s Word trying to give a “new face of influence” through political co-belligerence–turning the body of Christ into just another lobbyist group, PAC or “Christocrat.” Seminaries are having “theological lypo-suction” done at such alarming rates that even the doctrinal positions of TBN, by comparison, are looking deceptively… “orthodox.” And “full body makeovers” of local churches are being done so effectivel! y so as to not have to look like church, sound like church, act like church, be called a church, or function as a church that they could be featured on a special ecclesiatical episode of “The Swan.”

All sardonic metaphor aside, here’s the plain truth: the rule of faith is no longer considered the Scriptures, but experience; the goal of faith is no longer considered holiness, but personal happiness; the purpose of faith is no longer considered the glory of God, but being ‘in conversation’ with the culture; and the object of faith is no longer considered Christ, but self. In other words, ‘Evangelical Christianity’ is becoming completely unrecognizable.

This is an incisive, spot-on, awesome analysis of the current Christian scene – you need to read this article.

Just looked at the article. So, here’s my next question . . . what churches have got it right? How do you account for the large numbers of people who have come to Jesus through the ministry of TD Jakes, Bill Hybels and Rick Warren? I would suppose that Calvary Chapel has it right? I’m right there with you on the critique of Wright, McClaren and the others. Point to some examples of churches that are getting it right.

J4J – Pragmatism. Just because it works doesn’t mean it’s free from criticism.

For instance, to read criticism RE: Calvary Chapel, see http://www.phoenixpreacher.com. You’ll read many examples of what others feel we aren’t getting right.

Everyone is open to examination – I think that’s Steve’s point. No one gets a pass. Not me, not you, not T.D. Jakes, not Warren, not Jimmy Crack Corn, not the Boogey Man… nobody.

T. D. Jakes is Oneness – i.e., as Camp points out, Sabellian. An ancient heresy. The fact that many have come to the real Jesus in spite of the explicit and implicit Sabellianism in Jakes’ teaching is more a testament to the goodness of God than the doctrinal fidelity of Jakes.

I know of many people who are otherwise doctrinally sound who have been very blessed by MacLaren. I don’t get it, but there you have it.

As for churches which are getting it right… do you mean that every time someone points out problem areas in someone’s teaching that they have to balance it with someone who’s getting it right? ;D

But as for churches which are getting it right… I actually think that, even given Warren’s drift into social gospelism, Saddleback’s not a bad church. Even given Johnny Mac’s stark raving pinko commie Calvinism and rejection of the perpetuity of the Gifts, Grace Community Church gets it right.

For that matter, just about every Acts 29 church that I know of gets it right.

Much of the Vineyard gets it right. Even if they are a bit funky. ::sarcasm alert, sarcasm alert::

Heck, there are many churches here on the Lakeshore that get it right. A large church in the area, Calvary Church (not a Calvary Chapel – they’re one of the growing trend within the Southern Baptists to not want to be known as Baptists) is a good church.

…but none of that negates the excellent, superb, and otherwise really really good point(s) that Steve makes in his article.

Agreed, BUT . . . My church is located in a seminary and college town (Wilmore, KY). I come into contact with many people who spend a lot of time critiquing the work of other pastors and of other churches and end up spending very little time actually doing ministry. How does one, for example, come to seminary to learn about doing ministry and spend four years barely scraping the surface of the life of a local church and then go out as some kind of expert in ministry. Pragmatism does not mean that something is above criticism, but when should criticism end so that pragmatism can begin? Our goal is to glorify the Father by creating communities where Jesus can transform lives from self-centeredness to hearts aflame with worship! When criticism gets in the way of this happening, I tend to become much more pragmatic. I have found that criticism eventually becomes an impediment to the work of the gospel. Unless one is an emergent and then (to quote Rob Bell), perhaps our criticism is “just adding something to the conversation”?

I suppose – at the core – I think that Camp’s critique of Hybels and Warren is off base. They are certainly not above criticism and there are tenants of the Willowcreek model that we have chosen not to use in our church, but I think that it is totally off base to assume that Hybels has chosen cultural relevance and the audience over the true things of God. Perhaps Jesus did the same thing when he chose to use parables to teach people. Speaking of the kingdom of God as if it is a mustard seed you would plant in your garden OR yeast in a common loaf of bread was pretty darn culturally relevant to the people who were hearing and yet it pointed directly to God. At the same time, we can rest assured that the religious people of the day were highly offended by such teachings. Here’s the thing: whenever someone is going to offer such criticism I think it is also good for them to get the log out of their own eye at the same time. I didn’t hear that in the article. I find it difficult to criticize another believer or another church without also giving close self-examination to myself and to the church I pastor. If Steve Camp has the market cornered on what evangelicalism is in its perfection, well, that’s great. The complaints he makes about Hybels and Warren are all old hat in the Christian world and – to be quite frank – I’m tired of them. It is obvious (at least to me) that when you go to Willowcreek, for example, the Holy Spirit is at work. Specks and logs, brother: specks and logs!

Wow. The more I read this article, the dumber I feel. It is so well written that each time I read it I come away with something new. Understand that I am not saying that we should not critique each other. I am simply saying that I do not beleive critiquing others is all that we can be about. Unfortunately, critique is raised to become almost the “sole objective” of religious education in a seminary town. Thanks for posting the article. It was thought provoking and will remain so for me for a few days. I particularly appreciated the critique of Tom Wright as he is the hottest thing going right now in seminary circles.

J4J – I actually agree with you about ungracious criticism – i.e., criticism for criticism’s sake, rather than the kind of thing that I think Steve does in the article, which I look at as “having your back.” Everybody’s got blind spots. The issue is one of the heart – is the criticism done in a spirit of love and heart-brokenness and for the purpose of building the Body, or is it done from a less constructive POV?

One of my main issues with many “discernment ministries” is that they tend to become increasingly embattled and insular. I remember, for instance, way back when, I dialoged with Dr. James White on a certain issue dealing with the Word-Faith movement and the Vineyard. At the time, I was a part of the Vineyard, and mentioned that in passing – his response was, in effect, “good enough for me!” At that time in his ministry, he was still Kingdom-minded enough to hold his convictions dear, but still with the understanding that there are convictions we can disagree on and still be within the household of faith. In recent years, White’s become increasingly pugilent with those who disagree with his various positions – note his relentless attacks against George Bryson for George’s horrific temerity in questioning the Genevan Divine. And everybody who’s not a five-pointer is an idiot. Etc.

But that there is a difference between that and the type of examining of doctrine that Steve engaged in in the article is self-evident. Steve might be off-base with regard to (for instance) Warren and Hybels – but his point about cultural accommodation is salient. Yes, Jesus culturally accommodated – to a point. His cultural accommodation was for the purpose of giving greater clarity to His message, not for facilitating greater acceptance of it. John 6:66.

Paul became all things to all men that he might by any means win some – true. Thus, he adopted many Gentile traditions (for instance, the simple addition of “charis” to his epistolary greetings). Thus, he used “secular” examples to illustrate his message (e.g., soldiers, atheletes, farmers, etc.). But his accomodation of culture was for the purpose of illustrating and clarifying his message – not for diluting it or for gaining greater acceptance. His accommodation of culture did not include accepting his milieu’s syncretistic spirit, for instance. He lived in a multicultural society (yes, the Greek world was thoroughly Hellenized and Romanized, but those were the cultural scaffolding that the many individual cultures which had been subsumed into the Empire hung their cultural distinctives – much like we have an overarching American culture here in the States, into which our several subcultures fit). He did not accommodate culture for the sake of accommodating culture. He did not accommodate culture because the culture was good or acceptable or otherwise. He used cultural touchstones to illustrate and clarify the unchanging message of the Gospel – not to “re-imagine” or obfuscate it.

And neither Paul nor Jesus nor anybody else who’s lifted up as an example in Scripture compromised on core theological principles – such as Trinitarianism (RE: Jakes) or soteriology (RE: Wright) or otherwise.

Even Paul “named names” when he called out Hymanaeus, the father of Preterism.

I agree and appreciate your calling attention to the article. As I mentioned, there is definately a need for a more salient and well argued counter-point to Wright. His popularity at evangelical seminaries (such as my alma mater at Asbury) are somewhat disturbing to me. He will be welcomed with open and accepting arms again this fall for a lecture at ATS on the role of Jesus in political discourse. My instinct is that Wright’s theology is also very much at the core of the Emergent Movement in so many ways.

You do know, Mike, that Steve Camp is a “raving, commie” Calvinist? He’s actually much more dogmatic than MacArthur.

Have you been reading Hunt and Bryson again? Poor fellow!

You’re using rather harsh terms to describe MacArthur. I know that it is tongue in cheek…but Calvinists aren’t all that bad. I can point you to many ministries, both past and present, that were run by Calvinists—and they won people to the Lord, saw revivals, and were greatly used by the Lord, etc, etc.

Did you know that MacArthur’s church is almost 50% new converts? Not too bad for an old crusty Calvinist.

As far as White attacking Bryson. I actually sat in those Bryson workshops, during the pastor’s conferences–talk about attacking! After listening to Bryson, you would have thought that Calvinism (and John Calvin) were Satanic. I started reading Calvin’s Institutes like it was the Satanic Bible or something. I got done and thought–“I’ve never read something so pastoral and God glorifying in all of my life…surely Bryson must be thinking of someone else.”

Oh well, enough with me defending my fellow Calvinists. I’m just trying to bring some peace here. I love my Arminian and Calvinist brethren too much to allow such things to be said. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Shane – Yep, I did know that about Steve. And yes, the “pinko commie” reference was an intentional, slap-back for my Double Repropbation brethren who routinely lambaste us non-Calvinists.

Personally, I agree with the basic premise that Bryson posits from: that Calvinism, if taken to its logical conclusion, is inherently sterile – that great Calvinist evangelists are great evangelists in spite of their soteriology, not as a consequence of it.

But ultimately my major problem with Calvinism is how most of the time, when someone converts to the Gospel According to Pink, they become zealous… for Calvinism. Then they try to bait every conversation to steer it towards an argument over free will.

Very tiring.

I’m aware of many great Calvinists – from Chucky Spurgeon to Matt Henry to Johnny Mac. My point in purposefully “smacking back” is because I find that Calvinists tend to take themselves waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously, all the while looking down the nose condescendingly to us who do not adhere to the “doctrines of grace” – as hubristically so titled by Calvinists.

It was my experience in Calvary that once someone became a “Calvinist” they were then immediately put on the defensive. I saw many develope chips on their shoulder because they felt like they had something to prove. I don’t believe that is a healthy way to go about things. I believe that folks like Bryson and Hunt only made the problem worse. I think that many Calvinists would look at Calvary and think the same things about them. I think that there should be a bit more humility on both sides of the debate.

I would disagree with you on the “sterile” thing. Historic Calvinism, properly understood, actually influenced some of the greatest revivals and missionary movements ever seen. The newest Reformed Movement in America and England is sparking church movements and even revivals across the world. I’ve watched Southern Seminary explode in growth since Albert Mohler came in and reorganized things. I’ve seen groups like Sovereign Grace Ministries and Acts 29 plant hundreds of churches across the world–talk about a zeal for evangelism! I’ve seen men like John Piper and John MacArthur spark movements back to Biblical authority, missions, education, etc. I look at a church like Mars Hill and think–“Wow, a Reformed Calvary movement is starting!” But you’re right—the proof is in the pudding. How Reformed folks present themselves is very important. I like Joshua Harris’ term “Humble Orthodoxy.”

I believe that people like Bryson and Hunt haven’t come to the table objectly. They’ve come fighting—looking for anything bad that they can find. You know as well as I do that if that is your attitude–you’ll find plenty of negatives. That’s actually very easy to do with anything.

I personally don’t have it all together on this subject–I don’t think that I ever will. That’s why we need to humbly come to the Scriptures on these issues—put the boxing gloves down and just look at the data. And if my Christian brother comes back and says, “I think I am an Arminian,” then that’s good enough for me. I’m more interested in the quality of their character and heart for the Gospel then I am about the 5 points.

Anyways, it’s been fun reading your blog. I like to keep in touch with the Calvary folks and the Phoenix Preacher isn’t the most healthy dose of realism around. They’ve pointed out some obvious problems, but I’m not sure if I trust their motives.

Shane – Interestingly, in the late ’80’s, Calvary Chapel had no position on Calvinism. Chuck at that point couldn’t have cared less about it. However, some of the young guys caught the Genevan fire and began really pushing hard for it, to the point of belligerence… it was said by another commentator on another blog (a very non-CC-friendly blog run by a Calvinist) in explaining that time and the CC stance on Calvinism that developed from it in the mid-90’s, that the young, hyperzealous Calvinists “did not adorn their doctrine well,” and essentially ruined it for anybody else who was otherwise CC but also happened to embrace the Canons or Dort.

I agree with you – there should be a lot more humility and a lot more grace on both sides of the soteriological divide.

And I agree with you about the PP blog. I have very mixed feelings about it, myself…

BTW, as for “Reformed Calvary Movement” – have you ever checked out Sovereign Grace Ministries? I don’t know that they’re explicitly V-B-V types, but they place a heavy emphasis on expositional teaching, the Gifts of the Spirit, etc.; I don’t know their eschatological stand, either. But they’re Calvinist plural-elder-types to the core…

Currently in Seattle waiting to meet with the Acts 29 folks. The conference was great. There was a church from Twin Falls Idaho, there, that was a Calvary affiliate. I had a good talk with them. I like what they are doing at their church. They were part of a split from Mike Kessler’s church. They were very much aware of the issues with CSN and all of that stuff. They split 12 years ago and seem to be a very healthy church.

I saw a little of the Calvinist debate at the Bible College. There was alot of debates going on at the time. I was feeling guilty because I had been recommending Martyn Lloyd-Jones to all of my friends. One of my good friends became a Calvinist and went to the Master’s Seminary. It was a direct result of loaning him some Lloyd-Jones tapes.

Anyways, at the time, Calvary was trying to bring in their “big guns”. Which in the Calvary context are great noted scholars like Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler, and George Bryson (that was supposed to make you laugh).

Broderson was leaning Reformed for awhile and then came back to the light. I stayed neutral on the issue–because quite frankly–I didn’t know or understand the debate well enough. I was dissapointed about how people were handling it at the time and tried to stay a peace keeper.

Since then, I have become “softly” reformed. I had a great Calvinist professor at Southern Seminary who probably teaches on the issue the best. You can download his class on it at Biblicaltraining.com. Anyways, he lays it out in a way that makes the most sense to me. He’ll actually be lecturing, here, at Mars Hill tonight.

Some of the problem in Calvary is like you said–over the top Calvinsist come in and creat division on the subject. The other side of the problem is within Calvary. Right or wrong, they haven’t put alot of time into Systematic Theology. What happens as a result is that Calvinist speak one language and the Calvary folks speak another. They aren’t using the same terms the same way and it creates misunderstanding and fights. For example, what Bryson often calls Calvinism, is actually (technically) called Hyper-Calvinism in most circles. He’ll describe a hyper-Calvinistic teaching and then lump in mainstream Calvinists like Piper and Mac Arthur into that category. You’ll often hear statments from Calvary guys like, “Calvinists don’t believe that humans have free-will.” That is simply wrong. It’s a simple lack of understanding what the debate really is and what issues are involved.

I liked the days, in Calvary, when Chuck would teach Romans 9 for what it said and wouldn’t try to read an Arminian theology into it. Now, I hear Calvary folks try to explain it away–they’ll start off by saying, “Now I know what you are thinking, but it’s not really saying what you are thinking that it is saying…please let me explain.” My Calvary Pastor in California was actually accussed of being a Calvinist because of his teachings on Romans 9. He wasn’t even aware of the issue–he just taught the text for what it said.

Anyways, I have been pretty impressed with the emerging Reformed Movement. It has brought alot of life back to the SBC. Most people believe that Mohler will probably be President someday for the SBC. Times are a changing my friend.

Let’s pray that we all can represent our theologies with humility and with the better good of the church in mind. One of the reasons that Reformed theology has made a comeback is because of men like Lloyd-Jones, Piper, and Mohler. It’s hard to argue against them because of the quality of their character and the impact of their lives for the better good of the church.